307 replies to this topic

[no one]

Tesunie, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

I'm not certain of how this would impact the game. It probably would encourage boating large numbers of smaller launchers even more, which already is a meta for LRMs at the moment. Only defense against boated LRM5s (besides breaking lock, cover, ECM, etc) is the AMS. It counters the smaller launchers (which in this game have far less spread and faster refire), but has more trouble against larger launchers (which have greater spread and slower refire)

LRM5 focus is something of a balance issue. It's basically the same problem we had with streaks all targeting the center torso way back in beta. I think Van Tuz is on the right track with the fixed 1 - 3 missiles destroyed per AMS per 5 LRM volley, but you'd need LRM spread and tracking normalized first.

LRM 5 - 5.00dmg / 3.5s / 2t = 0.714
LRM 5A - 5.00dmg / 2.75s / 3t = 0.606

LRM 10 - 10.00dmg / 2.8s / 5t = 0.714
LRM 10A - 10.00dmg / 2.75 / 6t = 0.606

And so on. I mean, PGI normalized DPS/T on COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AUTO CANNONS but not on LRMs, where it would make actual sense to have a leveled DPS/T? I don't even PGI balance, man.

[Tesunie]

no one, on 12 January 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

LRM5 focus is something of a balance issue. It's basically the same problem we had with streaks all targeting the center torso way back in beta. I think Van Tuz is on the right track with the fixed 1 - 3 missiles destroyed per AMS per 5 LRM volley, but you'd need LRM spread and tracking normalized first.

I can understand the concept for balance, but my head can't fathom how to describe that even possibly working. Then again, I feel a lot of the LRM and it's counters kinda need to be looked into, and regulated in how it all works and relates to each other. AMS included.

[Insanity09]

Pardon me for not going back the page or two to find who wanted a laser guided system for LRMs.
We already have this in the game, it is called TAG. Better lock on times and grouping.

I have been mulling over the concept of how to make LRMs a little more difficult to use.
A couple general ideas, tied together...
Indirect fire needs to be woefully inaccurate (unless the target is NARC'd or TAG'd). It is already nothing to write home about, but it needs to be even worse. I'm thinking at least half of indirect lrms miss (even from 5's), unless guided somehow. Doing this would improve the importance of targetting aids and more importantly, encourage...
Direct fired lrms should be much better than they are currently (say 10-20% better grouping than current baseline), and disgustingly better when guided or paired with artemis (50% tighter than current baseline?), You might also give direct fire a velocity boost as well as natively tighter grouping. (less fuel reserved for direction changes, more for heading straight in)
Basically, make lrms worse as an indirect weapon, but incentivize for use as direct fire.

I'm also wondering if there is some way to make lrms respond not simply to a lock on, but to the cross hair position as well. If you aren't holding your cross hairs actually ON the enemy when the missiles land, then accuracy should suffer. This makes using the weapon a bit more like direct fire weapons, and should make it a little more difficult for the long range indirect lurmers. (An exception might be made if you maintain a lock, cross hairs off, but still have the target in direct sight?)

[Tesunie]

Insanity09, on 12 January 2017 - 10:16 PM, said:

You might also give direct fire a velocity boost as well as natively tighter grouping. (less fuel reserved for direction changes, more for heading straight in)

Although I read back a few of my posts and it "sounded" like I was talking about a velocity boost to direct fire, I wish to correct that misstatement now. I actually meant a velocity boost overall. However, that doesn't mean that some of that "speed" can't be used for the higher indirect trajectory. Basically, you can make LRMs faster overall, but some of that speed would be spent moving up and down, making indirect fire take longer in the air compared to direct fire, which would be a little more forwards going.

I just don't see how a velocity change between indirect and direct fire modes can be easily explained, as well as I have concerns about how the programing of this would work out. Not to mention trying to explain it to people "indirect missiles move slower than direct line of sight fired missiles..."

Sometimes, more simple is better overall. I'd try to keep velocity the same across the board for LRM uses, just have the flight path and grouping change between the modes. (Of course, this is just my concept/opinion.)

[Bazni]

I've played for awhile. I remember the Artemis implementation - that was fun. I currently often run a Jenner IIC with lrms, which I love since it allows me to counteract the chassis' fragility with distance. It's effective much more often than 10% of the time (most of the time, actually). I only solo pug, and it's got a W/L ratio greater than 1, so it is a net benefit to the team (although its not a finisher, so it gets a lot more KMDDs than kills). I also get my own locks most of the time. It shines especially on Alpine as a spotter and area denier. It's also short so its missiles work under the canopy in Crimson @ <300m. I think lrms have their place at any tier because indirect fire is always useful. Options are always good when you cannot always force the opponent to follow your game plan. But I also find it incredibly annoying for someone to demand that I lock targets for them.

1) Why would anyone expect their teammate to hold locks for them and not to use the locks for their own targeting purposes? If I'm in a flanking position, following the initial target as it retreats behind other teammates is ... stupid. So I switch targets and shoot the new easiest target. If the lrm boat won't get its own lock and wants to piggyback off of mine, fine and dandy, but don't complain when I use my own targeting computer for my own benefit - I help (well, try to, anyway) the team when I fire my weapons too. Especially when I can target opponents' components.

[Van Tuz]

Tesunie, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

You are presuming that Arrow would be able to take alternative ammo types to launch. If this is the case, than so should LRMs and LBx...

Not necessary. Cluster munitions may be the only introduced ammo type for Arrow IV. That way this system can be used for one specialised purpose: kicking enemies out of cover and preventing "staring contest" between teams. This won't hurt LRM in any way because shells with mortar trajectory won't be effective against moving mechs.

Tesunie, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

For reducing damage per ton from 180 to 90... No. At that low of damage (potential) per ton invested, the only improvements that would save LRMs at that point would be if every missile launcher was guaranteed to hit and deal damage. And even then...
Reducing LRM ammo to 90 rounds per ton would effectively make it the weakest damage potential per ton of ammo invested.

You are missing many important things:
1) Brawlers can lose their ammo when damaged. LRM boats do not take much damage.
2) Brawlers need to invest tonnage in C.A.S.E. LRM boats may pack more ammo.
3) Brawlers may not even live long enough to deliver all of its potential damage. (please tell me you have tried using AC/20 as primary weapon) LRM boats are usually last to die.
4) AC and SRM are more likely to miss against fast targets than LRM.
All of these factors drop real damage values of AC or SRM far bellow what's on paper.

So, the question is: why should damage per ton of ammo for all weapons be absolutely equal? And what about lasers? You need 10 heat sinks for any mech anyway so one small laser gives infinite damage for 0.5 ton. Shouldn't we take this as a baseline?
Besides, by making LRM less susceptible to breaking locks we DO improve percentage of delivered damage. Just countering radar deprivation may actually if not make them a "mega impressive weapon system" but significantly improve their efficiency in higher tiers.

Tesunie, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

So, I'd like for you to explain to me how exactly you can believe that cutting ammo count per ton for LRMs would be helpful in encouraging it as a support system and not as a boated system?

Do not mix my arguments as you like please. Cutting ammo density would not improve LRM performance as secondary weapon. But it won't hurt it either. AMS changes would improve LRM performance as secondary weapon. If you re-read my previous post then you may note that LRM5 is a complete waste of tonnage against anything equipped with current AMS with modules. LRM 10 (or maybe even 15) won't reach their target if there's 2-3 AMS in cluster unless you happen to perfectly time your launches with your teammates (a pretty random and unreliable thing i would say). That's a complete waste of 6-7 tons. (8-9 in case of LRM 15) And you're complaining about need to take 1-2 extra ton of ammo. This and this alone prevents LRM from being a viable secondary weapon.

Your argument "well, if i need to take 2 extra tons of LRM ammo i might as well make it into an LRM boat" does not hold any water as well. Who builds their mechs that way? I do not. None of my mechs intended as brawlers or scouts did not suddenly ended as LRM boats.

Tesunie, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

I'm not certain of how this would impact the game. It probably would encourage boating large numbers of smaller launchers even more, which already is a meta for LRMs at the moment.

That's a balance oversight that i am aware of. However, if LRM5 is already the meta then it won't become any worse.

Tesunie, on 12 January 2017 - 08:56 PM, said:

I can understand the concept for balance, but my head can't fathom how to describe that even possibly working. Then again, I feel a lot of the LRM and it's counters kinda need to be looked into, and regulated in how it all works and relates to each other. AMS included.

Do you fathom why stripped down mechs do not move faster than fully loaded? Do you fathom how ammo from right arm feeds into launcher on the left arm without occupying extra space or critical slots in the torso? No? And you should not try to. What important is that AMS goes "rat-at-at-at" when bad missiles fly nearby and some of them fall down. Game balance. Period.

Edited by Van Tuz, 13 January 2017 - 05:52 AM.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 12 January 2017 - 06:37 PM, said:

My question here would be... How heavy on the LRMs is that team being? A mech or two boating LRMs? Not a problem and can be a boon if utilized correctly. A whole lance or more of nothing but LRM boats? You probably are in trouble... A bunch of people with only a small bit of LRMs, may work fine depending upon how the team works together and what they expect the LRMs to be doing...

With LRMs, there is such a thing as too many of them on a team. Get too many LRMs on the team, and you have a large weakness to anything counter LRMs (such as ECM, Radar Dep, if a team brought in AMS, them getting too close, etc).



The thing is, intentionally being disruptive and hindering your team and your teammates is a form of Griefing. So, in some aspects flickering your locks "all the time" can be a minor form of it, especially if you are doing it to prevent your LRM teammate(s) from being able to help. All that is leading to is them not helping you to kill the target as well as not helping the team by giving them solid information.

However, flickering your locks as an indicator of where the enemy is can be helpful. The trick is to do it once, maybe twice max. Then, hold a lock (well, as much as you can). I say this for several reasons, first is it helps any LRM users be able to help deal some damage to said target. The second reason is that it's easier for people to see and follow a set lock, rather than a bunch of flickers all over the place.

This is why it's a "it can be a form of griefing". If you are doing it just to literally keep LRMs from hitting than yes. You are griefing to some extent. You wont be punished for it (because how can they prove what your intentions are) because it is such a minor thing.

Overall, if you can, hold a lock. If you need to inform "lots over here", than by all means cycle through the enemy targets you can a little. (It also gives you those scouting bonuses.)

As a final note on this, I don't ever expect a teammate to die to hold a lock. Do what you must to play the game, just don't intentionally go out of your way to hinder another player is all, basically.

A full lance on Boreal with two narcers can cause some trouble. If they are backed up by six long range snipers instead of some brawlers, those lurmers are going to be in for a rough day if they matched up against my unit. I have however been a pug on Boreal with a bunch of other pugs that successfully lurmed an organised twelve man. With that said, it is still too hit or miss to really be considered as an effective or strong strategy to rely on.

Now....griefing. It is possible to really stretch out the meaning of what is or isn't griefing. However not helping a teammate do their job is too far of a stretch for me to back down or even be open to considering this griefing. You can bet safely that PGI is not going to consider not holding locks griefing as well. Going out of the way to interfere with player or harassing a player is the base and what I believe to be commonly accepted definition of griefing. Not assisting or ignoring them is just too far as you aren't actively preventing them from playing the game. Again if we were to try and insist on stretching that far we then also get into the territory of the hiding lurmer being a griefer as well.

[Tesunie]

MacClearly, on 13 January 2017 - 07:05 AM, said:

Now....griefing. It is possible to really stretch out the meaning of what is or isn't griefing. However not helping a teammate do their job is too far of a stretch for me to back down or even be open to considering this griefing. You can bet safely that PGI is not going to consider not holding locks griefing as well. Going out of the way to interfere with player or harassing a player is the base and what I believe to be commonly accepted definition of griefing. Not assisting or ignoring them is just too far as you aren't actively preventing them from playing the game. Again if we were to try and insist on stretching that far we then also get into the territory of the hiding lurmer being a griefer as well.

I'm not referring to "holding their hands so they can do damage" kind of targeting. If someone needs to drop a lock to survive or shoot at another target, I wont complain nor call it griefing. However, if I see someone who purposefully drops their lock on a mech for no reason simply because they see the little incoming missile symbol, it's a form of griefing. They are griefing the LRM user(s). However, as frustrating as this might be, it's such a mild case of griefing and so hard to prove the players intentions that, nothing will become of it.

Another, similar form, of greifing would be like, say, an ally intentionally stood in front of your mech to prevent you from shooting. Any time you moved, they moved with you and jumped in front of your weapons fire to force you to stop. This is effectively what someone who intentionally* drops locks as soon as they see the LRM indicator (or refuses to get any locks only when LRMs are in the match... Maybeish). It's one thing to drop a lock because "it's time to hide". It's different if you are still shooting at said target, but drop the lock to hinder the LRMs that where coming in to "steal your kill" or whatever. (*Of course, intentionally and willfully, which often times are hard to prove and, in combat, is kinda a minor thing.)

Sadly, in relation to LRM boats hiding behind cover, it is a strategy... They are actively participating, and they aren't actively hindering any specific player(s) within the match. You can make arguments about them not playing effectively, or as part of the team, or not sharing their armor, but they are taking no direct or deliberate actions to hinder anyone on their team either. They aren't griefiing the team, they are just playing selfishly and ineffectively. (Similar to people who intentionally don't hold locks, but instead of being just selfish, those people are also intentionally going out of their way to hinder another teammates performance. The distinction here is minor, but important.)


With all that said, I would mention that I wouldn't report anyone for breaking locks. Even if I see them apparently doing so when they see the incoming missile symbol. There is no rules in the game that say you must help your team out, but just because it isn't a punishable form of griefing doesn't mean it can't still be griefing.

[Danjo San]

MacClearly, on 12 January 2017 - 04:08 AM, said:

For clarity Evil Goof and I are the same person.

While you do make some decent points, my assertion is that you will not be successful as an organised lurm team up against even a competent equally organised unit. I have seen youtube videos where guys from very recognizable units, catch people off guard in group queue or faction and destroy the enemy team. Most familiar with FW know that one place 3 to 4 lurmers with a narcer or two can be highly effective is Boreal Vault. My unit has been caught off guard by a team who are very lurm focused on Sulfereous Rift.

I am not one of those guys who thinks the only way to win is brawling and charging head first into the enemy. I do like brawling and along with hit and run skirmishing, it is probably what I am best at. However most of my time lately when not leveling mechs in quick play has been focused on getting better with ppc and guass.

My point? Simply that, successful lurming is highly situational. You need the right map and you need the right circumstances such as opponents who are not organised. Even on Boreal, my unit when on attack is usually successful. Lurmers are generally easy to counter and are inferior to ppc and erlarge lasers.

As far as FW 4.1, it is still always better to not have lurmers on the quick play maps than it is to have them. You either hope that your pugging lurmers are balanced out by the opposing teams pugging lurmers, or that they are at least not entirely lrm dependent and that their other mechs contribute some. When dropping pure pug vs. pug, then again it usually balances itself out between the two teams.

Yesterdays impressions regarding Lurms made them feel very valid.
We had several matches in Conquest mode, and TBH the biggest problem regaining control over caps were in fact the LRMs, IS-Side didn't field any. We were up against Mixed-Clan Groups. Now bear in mind that this happened several times, we lost a few and we won a few, but the ones we lost were due to the fact that we were devasted by massive amounts of Lurms.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a tactic that was predecided, as we saw certain smaller groups in varying combinations, however having one or two lights, spotting or better yet equipped with NARC made it so much easier for them to hold control over points longer. And thus winning by score.
The lights were fast enough to get and hold targets while the main force didn't have to give up too much central ground. LRMS hitting any Mech that was trying to flip a cap, stopped the process immediately.
Murderballing to one group of Lurmboats, left the Spotters enough time to uncap and flip the caps we previously acquired.
This prove me once again that Lurms have their place.

[Barkem Squirrel]

MacClearly, on 10 January 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

The Oxide however is a different story. You are taking one of the best flanking, striking, hunting, harassing, mechs out of the picture and loading it up with the weapon that is currently the worst in the game. It would be like putting a ford engine in a Ferrari....sure you could make it work, but boy is it ever a $tupid thing to do.

You should see that thing go when 300 m from a target. There are a few loadouts depending on how much speed you want verses how much ammo you what when using a 4 LRM 5 Oxide.

Me it is a 265 XL 4 LRM 5's with 720 LRMs with BAP. 131 kph is not bad, but you can run out of LRMs quite a bit. Then again I can get over 720 damage with this build. (using an arty strike or air strike can put me over 720). It is more of can I do more damage than what I am carrying in LRM potential. So far over 720 a few times.

900 Lrms is a 245XL at 121 kph. This one may be better for an ammo perspective. Still I have not got over 900 damage with it, only 850. Still that is over 90% LRM hits.

1080 LRMs with a 225XL at 112 kph. This one is just too slow, but is fun on open maps. I have broken 900 damage with this mech even without using an arty strike.

This morning on Termiline in skirmish mode I was using a 2 lrm 5 and 2 ERML mist linx. I forced a warhawk to jump in to the pit next to the stargate in the center. How, use of terrain to prevent damage to myself, while exploiting him from saftey. I was going to kill him if he did not jump down. So I let him get out of the hole and then killed him and I was the only person to hit him. In the end I had a mad dog unable to move, a centurion cowering behind that wreckage farther back then that dam AMS/ECM kit fox running around attempting and failing to save them. They were complaining about all the LRMs we had due to me getting in on a flank and them never being able to dislodge me from seeing them. I had 2.5 tons of ammo and no one else had LRMs due to me having no spotting assists. One little mech using terrain and players fears of LRMs against them.

[Barkem Squirrel]

Danjo San, on 13 January 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yesterdays impressions regarding Lurms made them feel very valid.
We had several matches in Conquest mode, and TBH the biggest problem regaining control over caps were in fact the LRMs, IS-Side didn't field any. We were up against Mixed-Clan Groups. Now bear in mind that this happened several times, we lost a few and we won a few, but the ones we lost were due to the fact that we were devasted by massive amounts of Lurms.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a tactic that was predecided, as we saw certain smaller groups in varying combinations, however having one or two lights, spotting or better yet equipped with NARC made it so much easier for them to hold control over points longer. And thus winning by score.
The lights were fast enough to get and hold targets while the main force didn't have to give up too much central ground. LRMS hitting any Mech that was trying to flip a cap, stopped the process immediately.
Murderballing to one group of Lurmboats, left the Spotters enough time to uncap and flip the caps we previously acquired.
This prove me once again that Lurms have their place.

Here is a scary though, pop-tarting LRM boats with NARC. You can do that with quite a few mechs and how I use to run some LRM boats back long a go when we still had the ELO scores. It was the only way I could really survive based on who I was playing against at that time. Now I really do not care, but I have been on a mist linx, kit fox fix for a few weeks (lowering score to lower tier 3). Right now I have a few medium mechs set up with NARC and JJ's. Then again I just got the jenner IIc and puff basics done in a few games. Holy cow. I might just put a NARC on it.

Edited by Barkem Squirrel, 13 January 2017 - 10:22 AM.

[Tesunie]

Van Tuz, on 13 January 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

Not necessary. Cluster munitions may be the only introduced ammo type for Arrow IV. That way this system can be used for one specialised purpose: kicking enemies out of cover and preventing "staring contest" between teams. This won't hurt LRM in any way because shells with mortar trajectory won't be effective against moving mechs.

It would have to be the base and only type of Arrow ammo in the game (minus the hero mech of course ), unless they specifically made different weapon "types" that would only shoot off that specific ammo. However, I doubt that many players looking to use an Arrow system is going to be expecting or wanting a barrage weapon. I suspect many of them would want to have the basic and more well known ammo, which is a single missile that deals 20 points of damage to a single component. Arrow is known as a mech killer (just like AC20s, but with longer ranges). Of course, with double armor, it wont be as "killer" as it was in lore. But we don't want a weapon system to be head and shoulders above the rest...

Van Tuz, on 13 January 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

You are missing many important things:
1) Brawlers can lose their ammo when damaged. LRM boats do not take much damage.
2) Brawlers need to invest tonnage in C.A.S.E. LRM boats may pack more ammo.
3) Brawlers may not even live long enough to deliver all of its potential damage. (please tell me you have tried using AC/20 as primary weapon) LRM boats are usually last to die.
4) AC and SRM are more likely to miss against fast targets than LRM.
All of these factors drop real damage values of AC or SRM far bellow what's on paper.

So, the question is: why should damage per ton of ammo for all weapons be absolutely equal? And what about lasers? You need 10 heat sinks for any mech anyway so one small laser gives infinite damage for 0.5 ton. Shouldn't we take this as a baseline?
Besides, by making LRM less susceptible to breaking locks we DO improve percentage of delivered damage. Just countering radar deprivation may actually if not make them a "mega impressive weapon system" but significantly improve their efficiency in higher tiers.

Here is where you aren't entirely wrong, but aren't entirely correct either.
1. So can LRM equipped mechs. They can take more damage than you seem to think. Especially if used as a skirmisher role, a few as a support weapon or if it's being used in direct line of sight (and within 600m or closer). The things the weapon system is more efficient as.
2. CASE most times doesn't help mechs in MW:O. Most people take XL engines as it is, and even if they took a Std engine, ammo that is destroyed only has a 10% change of exploding in this game. Now if this was TT, where if an ammo crit slot was crit it's a 100% chance to explode...
3. Same can be true for LRM mechs. Sometimes, you round that corner and see the team. Sometimes, if you are hiding out back, a swarm of lights finds you first, and kills you. (And for the record, I've used every weapon in the game. I've even done the dual AC20 Jagermech, but didn't really like it much.)
4. LRMs are horrible against fast targets. They often times will run most of the LRMs shot at them into cover or the very ground behind them. Especially if they run perpendicular to the LRM flight path (still a thing, just not as effective as it once was). A well placed AC round can disable a light mech. SRMs can spread and deal ready damage to their legs. (if hit reg and HSR is working properly. Sometimes, I can visually hit a mech with my weapons, and nothing seems to happen...) Now you are talking about skill, more than the weapons themselves. Now we are falling into the realm of "can you hit a light mech with X weapon?"

Damage per ton of ammo doesn't need to be equal, and it isn't by what I posted. However, you can't just drop one type of ammo completely underneath the rest by half (with the exclusion of AC20, which is just under double of your proposed change). It's like you aren't considering that many LRMs still tend to miss, to the point where the average LRM accuracy stat is typically around 30-40%*. Even with me playing LRMs mostly up front and typically within 600m or closer, I still only have an accuracy of 40-50% with my LRMs. (Though, I will admit that I sometimes will throw some LRMs at a target I know I can't hit, just to drive them off a teammate. Amazing what that little "incoming missile" warning can do sometimes,)

So, now take that 180 ammo count, toss 50% away. That's 90 damage per ton of missile that's actually doing anything with my standard/best accuracy average for LRMs. Now, with your proposed change, that will drop down to 45 damage potential per ton with same said accuracy.

My other weapons I tend to get anywhere from 60% to 80% accuracy (at a quick glance, I see a lot of 80% accuracy for direct fired weapons). I'll go with 75% accuracy for the ACs, being what appears to be the middle ground. Now, the AC10 (I actually have 80% with that weapon) has 200 damage potential per ton. Correcting for accuracy turns that into an average damage potential per ton to be 150. (This is expected damage per ton of ammo will deal. Not saying I'd empty my bins of all ammo, hence it's in damage potential per ton.)

So, unless LRMs gain a 90-100% accuracy boost, 90 round per ton would drastically hinder LRMs, making them practically useless unless boated, and those boats would now no longer be able to consider back up weapons, because all that tonnage would be forced into ammo. But, if you made them more accurate, than people would be more likely to boat them as well...

(*And recall, I'm using numbers derived by my own stats. I know many people claim much lower LRM accuracy than I seem to have, but I used my own as those are the numbers I can prove as solid factual stats for the weapon.)

Van Tuz, on 13 January 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

Do not mix my arguments as you like please. Cutting ammo density would not improve LRM performance as secondary weapon. But it won't hurt it either. AMS changes would improve LRM performance as secondary weapon. If you re-read my previous post then you may note that LRM5 is a complete waste of tonnage against anything equipped with current AMS with modules. LRM 10 (or maybe even 15) won't reach their target if there's 2-3 AMS in cluster unless you happen to perfectly time your launches with your teammates (a pretty random and unreliable thing i would say). That's a complete waste of 6-7 tons. (8-9 in case of LRM 15) And you're complaining about need to take 1-2 extra ton of ammo. This and this alone prevents LRM from being a viable secondary weapon.

Your argument "well, if i need to take 2 extra tons of LRM ammo i might as well make it into an LRM boat" does not hold any water as well. Who builds their mechs that way? I do not. None of my mechs intended as brawlers or scouts did not suddenly ended as LRM boats.

"So, I'd like for you to explain to me how exactly you can believe that cutting ammo count per ton for LRMs would be helpful in encouraging it as a support system and not as a boated system?"
"Cutting ammo density would not improve LRM performance as secondary weapon. But it won't hurt it either."
How would it NOT hurt LRMs, when taken as a secondary weapon system? This was the statement I was asking about.

"Your argument "well, if i need to take 2 extra tons of LRM ammo i might as well make it into an LRM boat" does not hold any water as well."
It would force one to place more tonnage to a secondary support system, and away from their primary focus on their mech. So, that would place LRMs at either: A. Don't take them as a secondary weapon at all because they need way too much tonnage to do so, or B. Boat LRMs if you are going to use them at all because it isn't worth trying to make the weight for a few support launchers.

People plan their mechs to have a good balance between ammo count and expected ammo expenditure. Currently, the general rule of thumb for LRMs for expected ammo expenditure during a match is one ton of ammo (180 rounds) per every 5 LRM tubes. So, currently, a single LRM5 would be paired with one ton of ammo. An LRM10 would be paired with two tones of ammo. An LRM15 with three tons of ammo, etc.

If ammo count was cut in half, now we would be looking at that same expected ammo expenditure per game to be two tons per every 5 tubes. This would result in an LRM5 desiring two tons of ammo, an LRM10 wanting to have four tons of ammo, an LRM15 wanting six tons of ammo, etc. These numbers would not change. 180 rounds per every five tubes of LRMs is the recommended expected use for a match to effectively use an LRM system for the tonnage invested. You may run out of ammo, but by then it should have done it's job. It doesn't matter how much is in each ton, its the number of missiles you need for the launcher that counts. (Of course, working off current game mechanics.)

Another example would be the AC2. I can run a single AC2 on a ton of ammo fine and typically run low but not completely out by the end of a match. An AC5 I typically want 2 tons. This is if I'm going light on tonnage for those weapons, and depends upon the rest of the build. Each system would actually want to have half a ton if not a ton extra for comfort. Now, what would happen if we reduced the ammo count per ton of these weapons by half? Is that going to effect the number of bullets I want to field, meaning I want to being less (same tonnage investment)? Nope. I'll just be forced to try and find the tonnage to double my effective ammo counts, which now needs twice the crit slots and tonnage. It's not going to change how many bullets I want to being with me at all, just forces me to be weighed down more.

Van Tuz, on 13 January 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

Do you fathom why stripped down mechs do not move faster than fully loaded? Do you fathom how ammo from right arm feeds into launcher on the left arm without occupying extra space or critical slots in the torso? No? And you should not try to. What important is that AMS goes "rat-at-at-at" when bad missiles fly nearby and some of them fall down. Game balance. Period.

Van Tuz, on 13 January 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

That's a balance oversight that i am aware of. However, if LRM5 is already the meta then it won't become any worse.

There are many things that can describe some of what you mention here:
1. A stripped down mech might not move faster due to being lighter possibly due to the way it is built. An Atlas, even if stripped and sitting in at 50 tons with an engine, may not move the same as a 50 ton mech designed to move faster. The legs are built to hold 100 tons up, so it may have structural pieces keeping it from "running free". The other part is, if you started to try and calculate this, than mechs would start to go faster in the middle of matches, as they lose arms and use ammo. That's a bit complex to add into a game, of most any sort...
2. This is the 3050s. Anything may be possible. However, I would presume that there are feeds everywhere in a mech, if the ammo feeds are so light and take so little space they might not be counted as a critical system. I would also mention, in BT, most ammo was stored in the same component as the weapon, or nearby. As a game function, it's not addressed, probably to try and keep things streamlined. It may also be presumed/encouraged that people who created custom mechs follow this logical path presented in the in game "example" and do the same to their designs. However, being gamers, people tend to find what is "best", not what always "makes sense" or "matches what is already here."


Just because I can't fathom how it might work, doesn't mean it might not be a more balanced approach. But, I for one would rather reward players who take AMS, and those teams that take them. I also would love to encourage more larger launchers over smaller ones, to try and make the LRM5 less "viable" in comparison, so all launcher sizes would be more viable systems to choose from. Your AMS system proposal, as I already pointed out, would actually encourage the streamlined-chain-fired-boating of LRM5 systems. Though AMS working as you describe would help out mechs that take some LRMs as a support weapon, it would be less effective against the most common LRM boat type out there, massed LRM5s.

So, between me not being able to wrap my head around an AMS that gets more effective the more missiles that come in and that proposal very probably aiding in the boating of lower tube count LRM launchers... I just don't see how it would solve the proposed problems. Sure, it would make support LRMs more effective, but at the same time it would make boated LRMs more effective. (I say this as most LRM boats just seem to take massed LRM5s. Though larger launcher boats are starting to make a resurgence with the recent LRM changes...)

[Amsro]

This thread!


Some good reads and valid points.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 13 January 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

I'm not referring to "holding their hands so they can do damage" kind of targeting. If someone needs to drop a lock to survive or shoot at another target, I wont complain nor call it griefing. However, if I see someone who purposefully drops their lock on a mech for no reason simply because they see the little incoming missile symbol, it's a form of griefing. They are griefing the LRM user(s). However, as frustrating as this might be, it's such a mild case of griefing and so hard to prove the players intentions that, nothing will become of it.

Another, similar form, of greifing would be like, say, an ally intentionally stood in front of your mech to prevent you from shooting. Any time you moved, they moved with you and jumped in front of your weapons fire to force you to stop. This is effectively what someone who intentionally* drops locks as soon as they see the LRM indicator (or refuses to get any locks only when LRMs are in the match... Maybeish). It's one thing to drop a lock because "it's time to hide". It's different if you are still shooting at said target, but drop the lock to hinder the LRMs that where coming in to "steal your kill" or whatever. (*Of course, intentionally and willfully, which often times are hard to prove and, in combat, is kinda a minor thing.)

Sadly, in relation to LRM boats hiding behind cover, it is a strategy... They are actively participating, and they aren't actively hindering any specific player(s) within the match. You can make arguments about them not playing effectively, or as part of the team, or not sharing their armor, but they are taking no direct or deliberate actions to hinder anyone on their team either. They aren't griefiing the team, they are just playing selfishly and ineffectively. (Similar to people who intentionally don't hold locks, but instead of being just selfish, those people are also intentionally going out of their way to hinder another teammates performance. The distinction here is minor, but important.)


With all that said, I would mention that I wouldn't report anyone for breaking locks. Even if I see them apparently doing so when they see the incoming missile symbol. There is no rules in the game that say you must help your team out, but just because it isn't a punishable form of griefing doesn't mean it can't still be griefing.

No, I am sorry that is too far of a stretch. If you were physically blocking a player from playing the game or shooting and you happened to be recording it, PGI would absolutely consider it griefing. You can't interfere or stop a player from playing. Not sharing your locks doesn't fall into the category of directly interfering with them. Not helping a player is not the same as griefing. Just as not rushing back to help an assault that is being tore up by a light, is not a form of griefing.

The key logic and key difference between the two is that it is not griefing to not help or allow a player to play exactly how they want to play. It is griefing to intentionally try and interfere with their ability to play. A guy with lrm's can play the game while getting his own locks or trying to use ones available to him. There is however no rule or obligation other players must follow, that says they have to or must get locks for other players. Not just because it is not a rule is it not griefing, not helping and intentionally disrupting or harassing are very different things.

If we were to even go down the road of making broad and sweeping changes to what is commonly accepted as griefing behaviour, then there would be a huge argument that players bringing lrm boats to FW are griefing other players. They are intentionally bringing an ineffective weapon that will be a hindrance to the their team. They are bringing something that they know will annoy other players....I just got out of FW where we had just about half the team of pugs trying to lurm on Grim Portico. It did not go well and I definitely feel as though these players were griefing....

Danjo San, on 13 January 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

Yesterdays impressions regarding Lurms made them feel very valid.
We had several matches in Conquest mode, and TBH the biggest problem regaining control over caps were in fact the LRMs, IS-Side didn't field any. We were up against Mixed-Clan Groups. Now bear in mind that this happened several times, we lost a few and we won a few, but the ones we lost were due to the fact that we were devasted by massive amounts of Lurms.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a tactic that was predecided, as we saw certain smaller groups in varying combinations, however having one or two lights, spotting or better yet equipped with NARC made it so much easier for them to hold control over points longer. And thus winning by score.
The lights were fast enough to get and hold targets while the main force didn't have to give up too much central ground. LRMS hitting any Mech that was trying to flip a cap, stopped the process immediately.
Murderballing to one group of Lurmboats, left the Spotters enough time to uncap and flip the caps we previously acquired.
This prove me once again that Lurms have their place.

Sure, this proved to you something. Great.

[MacClearly]

Barkem Squirrel, on 13 January 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

You should see that thing go when 300 m from a target. There are a few loadouts depending on how much speed you want verses how much ammo you what when using a 4 LRM 5 Oxide.

Me it is a 265 XL 4 LRM 5's with 720 LRMs with BAP. 131 kph is not bad, but you can run out of LRMs quite a bit. Then again I can get over 720 damage with this build. (using an arty strike or air strike can put me over 720). It is more of can I do more damage than what I am carrying in LRM potential. So far over 720 a few times.

900 Lrms is a 245XL at 121 kph. This one may be better for an ammo perspective. Still I have not got over 900 damage with it, only 850. Still that is over 90% LRM hits.

1080 LRMs with a 225XL at 112 kph. This one is just too slow, but is fun on open maps. I have broken 900 damage with this mech even without using an arty strike.

This morning on Termiline in skirmish mode I was using a 2 lrm 5 and 2 ERML mist linx. I forced a warhawk to jump in to the pit next to the stargate in the center. How, use of terrain to prevent damage to myself, while exploiting him from saftey. I was going to kill him if he did not jump down. So I let him get out of the hole and then killed him and I was the only person to hit him. In the end I had a mad dog unable to move, a centurion cowering behind that wreckage farther back then that dam AMS/ECM kit fox running around attempting and failing to save them. They were complaining about all the LRMs we had due to me getting in on a flank and them never being able to dislodge me from seeing them. I had 2.5 tons of ammo and no one else had LRMs due to me having no spotting assists. One little mech using terrain and players fears of LRMs against them.

Of coarse. You should contact EMP and especially Gman to let them know of your success. That way top comp teams and meta mechs can then show the world how wonderful the lrm Oxide is...

[Shuruga]

Probably a bit late to the discussion - anyway, here are my thoughts.

I believe LRMs are where they should be in terms of balancing. I do not regard the as over- or underpowered. They definitely enhance game play, and require players (friendly and enemy alike) to adapt and be aware of them. The game would be so much reduced in tactics and variety without them. It would be just plain boring.

I also do not consider them a noob weapon - unless you also got the right flavored map and/or the corresponding red taco to go with. Depending on your tier, that may be more or less frequent. If you don't have either ECM, AMS, Radar Derp or a matching playstyle, it is your fault, if you decide to 'travel the great plains'. Missing technology can always be matched by intelligence. If I needed that ton for ammo or a heatsink, fine. But one should not complain, when not knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your mech, your environment, and your team mates. That's where the real beauty is. Lunatic solo players die alone.

So I don't really see why there should be a pro or con discussion of LRMs or their players. They are a support weapon, and if players call and lock their targets, they are great in reducing total armor of the enemy and give some breath of air for a brawling friendly under fire. They are also not a kill stealing weapon, since there is no focussed fire. This means, that they are effectively a TEAM weapon and should be understood as such.

I don't rely on my team mates to lock their targets. I usually stay with the hive in a mid range. Once the first contacts get in, I will send my first salvo. Before that salvo connects, I fire up a 40k UAV to ensure that the lock stays on. I will also send up that UAV if stupid me took that super slo-mo, all-LRM build and suddenly gets surrounded by lights (even if I don't make it, the team will still benefit by the reconnaissance). So sometimes, greed can spell your doom. I also almost always carry Tag.

P.S. And for those that cry about armor not shared by an LRM mech, as a good team mate I will use my mech as shield, or deliberately use my tag even once I have run out of ammo. I start to expose my mech more on the front line, once ammo runs low. In high tiers, you have to act as a team to win.

P.P.S. Regarding hiding in cover, this IS crucial at the beginning of the match in order not to announce your position. The LRM players at 800-1000m range are actually bad players, as they are easily flanked by lights and the chance of making those salvos hit are slim. You want to be at 400-600m to ensure that you have a good hit probability, getting some return fire, and (your own) UAV coverage.

P.P.P.S. About the LRM griefers (either by standing in the firing line or unlocking targets): This is most likely not deliberate and subject to interpretation. A mech doesn't have 360° vision and targets do get unlocked by ECM. I usually position myself not as close to a friendly back unless I am in a laser boat and we're planning on attacking in turns. But then there are players that P-K for a bit of scratched paint on your mech foot.

So, in conclusion, there's no reason for LRM hate. It's like in RL, there's no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothes. And good team play.

Edited by Shuruga, 13 January 2017 - 01:09 PM.

[Tesunie]

MacClearly, on 13 January 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

No, I am sorry that is too far of a stretch. If you were physically blocking a player from playing the game or shooting and you happened to be recording it, PGI would absolutely consider it griefing. You can't interfere or stop a player from playing. Not sharing your locks doesn't fall into the category of directly interfering with them. Not helping a player is not the same as griefing. Just as not rushing back to help an assault that is being tore up by a light, is not a form of griefing.

The key logic and key difference between the two is that it is not griefing to not help or allow a player to play exactly how they want to play. It is griefing to intentionally try and interfere with their ability to play. A guy with lrm's can play the game while getting his own locks or trying to use ones available to him. There is however no rule or obligation other players must follow, that says they have to or must get locks for other players. Not just because it is not a rule is it not griefing, not helping and intentionally disrupting or harassing are very different things.

I'm talking about intentionally dropping locks once someone sees the "incoming LRM" notification on their targets. Doing so as a course of action to survive (I'm being shot at and need to take cover) is one thing. I'm talking about a willful and intentional dropping locks just to hinder the LRM users.

Yes, the LRM users can and should get their own locks. However, that doesn't mean that their teammates should drop locks every time they shoot at a target that someone else has locked. (Of course, this is presuming worst case where an entire team is dropping locks intentionally on the LRM user, not as a course of action as a result of common combat. And yes, I actually had the pleasure of playing with a team of players who did just that once, but I got my own locks anyway.) This practice, if and when it is done, does nothing but hinder teammates and wastes their ammo. It is essentially griefing the LRM users of that team "just because they have LRMs and I don't want to give them a kill".

But, as I said, it has to be intentionally done with the purpose to hinder a specific user or group of users. In this case here, the LRM users. The problem here is, the intent. Are they intentionally dropping locks with the intent to hinder the LRM users? Or are they doing so just because it's happening in the course of the battle and can't be avoided? It's all about the intent behind the action.

I'll just repeat, I'm not talking about "being forced to get and hold locks for teammates", but rather the intentional and willful breaking of locks solely for the purposes of hindering LRM users. And, of course, this is hard to nearly impossible to prove, which is why it is borderline griefing to very minor griefing, and why where is no rules for or against this behavior.

I would only hope that people are respectful of other people to not perform such actions with the sole intent to hinder another player's performance, and that they would get locks as a natural course of playing the game and just let their teammates naturally and fluidly aid them because of said locks. However, we don't always see this happening in a match, and sometimes we even see people vocally announce that they wont do so as well because "someone has LRMs". (Yes, I've taken the verbal abuse before when I announced "I have some LRMs, so if you get locks I'll try to support you". Apparently, some LRMs meant all LRMs to some people, and try to support became "hold loks plz"...)


Griefing isn't doing something that may hinder the team, or not helping someone out. It's when you go out of your way to hinder someone else's game play intentionally. Bringing LRMs into a match isn't intentionally hindering other players, even if it isn't always helpful to your team. Dropping locks just because you see the incoming LRM symbol is hindering other players directly, which can be a form of griefing. Just as intentionally shooting allies is griefing (and provable as well), running headlong alone into the enemy team to die quickly is also griefing (and often provable), not participating in a match (willfully, not due to some game issue) is griefing, walking in front of and staying in front of an allied mech to intentionally block their shots is griefing...

Griefing is any intentional action that is designed to hinder someone else's game play. Bringing LRMs and hiding in the back doesn't prevent other players from playing the game differently. You don't even have to go out of your way to even help said players hiding in the back. But you should continue to play the game normally with no intention or action to purposefully hinder them either. AKA: If you normally would target a mech and shoot at it in a match, but you intentionally don't do so just because there are LRMs on your team hiding in the back behind cover... you are griefing that player to some extent. But, there is no way to prove said griefing, as it's not apparent if you are or are not doing so intentionally.

Spoiler

Just for some ground rules: https://en.wikipedia...ipedia:Griefing
"Griefing is the act of chronically causing consternation to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay."

Another good article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
"Intentional friendly fire or deliberately performing actions detrimental to other team members' game performance, including wasting or destroying key game elements, colluding with the opposition and giving false information."
"Deliberately blocking shots from a player's own team or blocking a player's view by standing in front of them so they cannot damage the enemy."
"Faking extreme incompetence with the intent of hurting teammates or failing an in-game objective."

Last one, I promise: http://www.urbandict...p?term=griefing
"1. Purposefully shooting or otherwise sabotaging your teammates in an online game."

Edit in spoiler. I had mentioned something twice...

Edited by Tesunie, 13 January 2017 - 01:09 PM.

[Insanity09]

Let me state, as I have before, that everyone should be getting their own locks as much as possible. That being said....

If you are shooting at an enemy and can have them targeted ( 'r'), you should. Whether there are LRMs on your team or not, the target info you get and the location info shared with your team is a huge benefit.
(And btw, if you don't think your aim is decent enough to warrant getting target info... the only way to get better is practice, and that means hitting 'r'. Better aim is one of the main skills to work for in the game. Just do it.)

As Tesunie said above, if you are ever intentionally doing anything to hinder a teammate, such as not holding a lock, whether the motivation is greed, annoyance, selfishness, spite, or whatever, that is griefing and you clearly don't belong in a team focused game. If you are doing something that could be considered griefing out of ignorance... learn not to do it.

And if the appeal to skilled play and sportsmanship doesn't move you, consider this... an LRM user on your team probably wants to do their best, even if they are a very unskilled LRM user hanging in the back. If you deny them locks, then not only are they not sharing armor and so forth, you are now preventing them from doing damage, so their one possible contribution to your winning the match is now gone. Help yourself; allow them the locks, but politely, respectfully request that they join the rest of the team in the thick of it as a good player should.

[finalexamweekFTW]

Ok, my contributions to the debate, Firstly, LRMs are passive weapons. What I mean by that is an LRM boat can sit 4-700 meters behind the line and not maneuver, just bothering to follow the red dots with the mouse and generally zone out and lose situational awareness. I have had to rescue more than one out of position LRM boat only for him to die anyway and leave me in a bad spot. THIS IS NOT UNIVERSAL HOWEVER. The other issue that I have with LRMs is the problem they present with indirect fire. this capability is fine by itself, however the mechanic for radar decay and the like is broken IMHO. how radar works is that a radio wave is reflected off of a surface and returns to the sender and therefore gives a contact, as soon as I break radar contact by going over a ridge or behind a low building that blocks LOS, all locks should be immediately broken and the missiles should fly to the last known location. With Radar decay however, the missiles continue to track A MOVING TARGET without input from the radar system and therefore no longer function as missiles but as AI controlled objects. To my understanding missiles require constant radar contact to the target to track it. This is the case with real missiles not including missiles with a self contained radar like AMRAAM, which would still require directional LOS to the target to track it. What PGI has done though is to give us Radar Deprivation modules, which forces missiles and radar systems to function as they would IN REAL LIFE. So my issue is that LRMs will continue to rain on my *** for another 10 to 15 seconds after I break LOS and therefore radar contact with every enemy player. One last note, NARC is fine and dandy and makes sense similar to Radar guidance but lasts far too long to be fair to us that choose to not play LRM boats. A mech like the Raven 3L with its quirk for increased NARC duration and the NARC duration module you can make it last a good minute I think, which is a long time for a randomly generated team that may or may not have ECM to counter it, and therefore a 100 ton mech can therefore get absolutely shredded on a map like caustic or Polar Highlands with no chance to seek cover. That is my issue with them. That is why I hate them.

[MacClearly]

Tesunie, on 13 January 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

I'm talking about intentionally dropping locks once someone sees the "incoming LRM" notification on their targets. Doing so as a course of action to survive (I'm being shot at and need to take cover) is one thing. I'm talking about a willful and intentional dropping locks just to hinder the LRM users.

Yes, the LRM users can and should get their own locks. However, that doesn't mean that their teammates should drop locks every time they shoot at a target that someone else has locked. (Of course, this is presuming worst case where an entire team is dropping locks intentionally on the LRM user, not as a course of action as a result of common combat. And yes, I actually had the pleasure of playing with a team of players who did just that once, but I got my own locks anyway.) This practice, if and when it is done, does nothing but hinder teammates and wastes their ammo. It is essentially griefing the LRM users of that team "just because they have LRMs and I don't want to give them a kill".

But, as I said, it has to be intentionally done with the purpose to hinder a specific user or group of users. In this case here, the LRM users. The problem here is, the intent. Are they intentionally dropping locks with the intent to hinder the LRM users? Or are they doing so just because it's happening in the course of the battle and can't be avoided? It's all about the intent behind the action.

I'll just repeat, I'm not talking about "being forced to get and hold locks for teammates", but rather the intentional and willful breaking of locks solely for the purposes of hindering LRM users. And, of course, this is hard to nearly impossible to prove, which is why it is borderline griefing to very minor griefing, and why where is no rules for or against this behavior.

I would only hope that people are respectful of other people to not perform such actions with the sole intent to hinder another player's performance, and that they would get locks as a natural course of playing the game and just let their teammates naturally and fluidly aid them because of said locks. However, we don't always see this happening in a match, and sometimes we even see people vocally announce that they wont do so as well because "someone has LRMs". (Yes, I've taken the verbal abuse before when I announced "I have some LRMs, so if you get locks I'll try to support you". Apparently, some LRMs meant all LRMs to some people, and try to support became "hold loks plz"...)


Griefing isn't doing something that may hinder the team, or not helping someone out. It's when you go out of your way to hinder someone else's game play intentionally. Bringing LRMs into a match isn't intentionally hindering other players, even if it isn't always helpful to your team. Dropping locks just because you see the incoming LRM symbol is hindering other players directly, which can be a form of griefing. Just as intentionally shooting allies is griefing (and provable as well), running headlong alone into the enemy team to die quickly is also griefing (and often provable), not participating in a match (willfully, not due to some game issue) is griefing, walking in front of and staying in front of an allied mech to intentionally block their shots is griefing...

Griefing is any intentional action that is designed to hinder someone else's game play. Bringing LRMs and hiding in the back doesn't prevent other players from playing the game differently. You don't even have to go out of your way to even help said players hiding in the back. But you should continue to play the game normally with no intention or action to purposefully hinder them either. AKA: If you normally would target a mech and shoot at it in a match, but you intentionally don't do so just because there are LRMs on your team hiding in the back behind cover... you are griefing that player to some extent. But, there is no way to prove said griefing, as it's not apparent if you are or are not doing so intentionally.

Spoiler

Just for some ground rules: https://en.wikipedia...ipedia:Griefing
"Griefing is the act of chronically causing consternation to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay."

Another good article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
"Intentional friendly fire or deliberately performing actions detrimental to other team members' game performance, including wasting or destroying key game elements, colluding with the opposition and giving false information."
"Deliberately blocking shots from a player's own team or blocking a player's view by standing in front of them so they cannot damage the enemy."
"Faking extreme incompetence with the intent of hurting teammates or failing an in-game objective."

Last one, I promise: http://www.urbandict...p?term=griefing
"1. Purposefully shooting or otherwise sabotaging your teammates in an online game."

Edit in spoiler. I had mentioned something twice...

This is not a case of me not understanding what you are saying or missing your point. I flat out disagree and am outright saying that you are wrong.

Griefing is intentionally interfering with someone playing the game. Not sharing information is not covered here. Choosing to play your own style and being a 'puck' hog to use a Canadian term, may be being a poor or selfish teammate. If I have the puck or enemy in my sights in this case, and I choose to be selfish and try and kill him all on my own, it is not griefing anyone. No one should ever be expecting a player to do what they want them to do, to make it easier on them or their weapons choice to succeed. The biggest thing here and while it may seem like splitting hairs, is the difference between going out of your way to interfere with a player and not helping a player. Again no one can or should expect other players to do something that they want them to do, in order for them to enjoy or succeed. That's not a fair or reasonable expectation. Sharing locks is voluntary and not sharing them is a choice. If the mechanics were such that it would completely negate the lrm pilots ability to play the game you might have a leg to stand on here.

As for bringing lrms in the first place being a form of griefing, I am not saying it actually is. I was saying following your logic and stretched definition it certainly can be construed as such. For instance there are many posts asking new players to not bring them to FW and many experienced players will tell these guys to stop doing it because in this mode it is very harmful to the team. People do it anyways. Now while not griefing under my definition, under yours, it certainly could be. Being in the back is making it more difficult for those in the brawl up front. This is giving the enemy less targets and making it an uneven fight. This is why the only way to have success with lurms is teams that specifically mitigate for these circumstances. One side is saying don't bring the dammed things, the other is saying hold locks please. Either side is not griefing the other by not listening to the demands.

These scenerios can go on and on. So as far as your wiki for reference, please consider the difference outside of intent or motives. There is a diffence here between 'sabotage' and not helping.

While still in the realm of lrm hate, I actually think that this topic should perhaps be opened in a thread of its own to get others take on griefing in general and if others see our two sides...